The Filibuster II

Seems like it deserves it’s own thread.

Obviously the greatest concern is when one’s party is in the minority.

Given the tilt against the democrats as to number of states controlled, does it make sense to end it?

Should adding states be the priority first?

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

kill it.

The Senate favors the minority already. They don't need more help.

kill it.

kill it.

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I like it. Takes Manchin’s proposal further. 

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I don't quite get this. Does this mean that 40 of the 50 R's can still control the outcome?

Say the Rs hold the House by 2 votes and 54 seats in the Senate (representing say 35 percent of the voters, but who cares about that...) And the Presidency, of course.

No fillibuster. Come up with whatever outrageous R proposal you want that they will all vote in lockstep for.

What do you do to stop it?

jimmurphy said:

Say the Rs hold the House by 2 votes and 54 seats in the Senate (representing say 35 percent of the voters, but who cares about that...) And the Presidency, of course.

No fillibuster. Come up with whatever outrageous R proposal you want that they will all vote in lockstep for.

What do you do to stop it?

 dude, that's democracy.

how about a real life example? 250 proposals across the country to limit voting rights, and Dems can't stop it because of the filibuster.

kill it.

shouldn't even be a discussion.

drummerboy said:

 dude, that's democracy.

No, that’s not democracy. Did you miss the 35 percent of the voters point?  That’s the effect of 2 senators for each state, regardless of the population of voters.

The fillibuster is a check for that idiocy.

It's really not a check, because right now it's giving the 35% (or whatever) the power to stop anything. How is that a check?

kill it.

Right now.

Are you unable to see the “not right now” position?

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I don't quite get this. Does this mean that 40 of the 50 R's can still control the outcome?

 From the article: "If at any time the minority cannot muster 40 votes, debate ends, cloture is invoked, and the bill can be passed by the votes of a simple majority."

So it shifts the dynamic. Rather than the onus being on the majority who must break the filibuster, the minority would need to actively work to sustain it.

Again from the article:

"If, for example, Democrats introduced a sweeping package of democracy reforms and Republicans filibustered them, the majority could keep the Senate in session around the clock for days or weeks and require nearly all the Republicans to be present constantly, sleeping near the Senate floor and ready on a moment’s notice to jump up and get to the floor to vote—including those who are quite advanced in years, such as Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Charles Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. It would require a huge, sustained commitment on the part of Republicans, not the minor gesture now required. The drama, and the attention, would also give Democrats a chance to explain their reforms and perhaps get more public support—and eventually, they would get a law."

The way I see it, right now we're f***ed. You want to accept getting f'ed to avoid some made-up future scenario?

The way to avoid your scenario is to win elections, not to use the filibuster. And right now, our best bet to win elections in the future is to kill the filibuster today.

PVW said:

 From the article: "If at any time the minority cannot muster 40 votes, debate ends, cloture is invoked, and the bill can be passed by the votes of a simple majority."

So it shifts the dynamic. Rather than the onus being on the majority who must break the filibuster, the minority would need to actively work to sustain it.

Again from the article:

"If, for example, Democrats introduced a sweeping package of democracy reforms and Republicans filibustered them, the majority could keep the Senate in session around the clock for days or weeks and require nearly all the Republicans to be present constantly, sleeping near the Senate floor and ready on a moment’s notice to jump up and get to the floor to vote—including those who are quite advanced in years, such as Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Charles Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. It would require a huge, sustained commitment on the part of Republicans, not the minor gesture now required. The drama, and the attention, would also give Democrats a chance to explain their reforms and perhaps get more public support—and eventually, they would get a law."

Yes, makes it an effort to sit there and take responsibility for the no votes that are against the best interests of the people. 

Better than “Mr. Smith...”

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I don't quite get this. Does this mean that 40 of the 50 R's can still control the outcome?

 From the article: "If at any time the minority cannot muster 40 votes, debate ends, cloture is invoked, and the bill can be passed by the votes of a simple majority."

So it shifts the dynamic. Rather than the onus being on the majority who must break the filibuster, the minority would need to actively work to sustain it.

Again from the article:

"If, for example, Democrats introduced a sweeping package of democracy reforms and Republicans filibustered them, the majority could keep the Senate in session around the clock for days or weeks and require nearly all the Republicans to be present constantly, sleeping near the Senate floor and ready on a moment’s notice to jump up and get to the floor to vote—including those who are quite advanced in years, such as Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Charles Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. It would require a huge, sustained commitment on the part of Republicans, not the minor gesture now required. The drama, and the attention, would also give Democrats a chance to explain their reforms and perhaps get more public support—and eventually, they would get a law."

yeah, I still don't get it. wouldn't the Dems have to sleep on the floor too? Young chickens like Pat Leahy and Diane Feinstein? Or is only the group that has to muster 40 votes subject to floor sleeping?  

Also, I'm sure McConnell and company can get off of floor duty since they only need forty votes, so all 50 don't need to be there at once.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

drummerboy said:

The way I see it, right now we're f***ed.

Second time.  Just can’t see past “right now”, can you?

jimmurphy said:

drummerboy said:

The way I see it, right now we're f***ed.

Second time.  Just can’t see past “right now”, can you?

third time, if we don't pass HR1 now, we're doomed for the future. For one thing, HR1 would get rid of gerrymanders. Do you have any idea how big that is? And that's only a small part of it.

But go ahead, plan ahead for future fantasy scenarios, and ignore the sword hanging over your head now.

Your plan will leave you with no head and no future to worry about.

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I don't quite get this. Does this mean that 40 of the 50 R's can still control the outcome?

 From the article: "If at any time the minority cannot muster 40 votes, debate ends, cloture is invoked, and the bill can be passed by the votes of a simple majority."

So it shifts the dynamic. Rather than the onus being on the majority who must break the filibuster, the minority would need to actively work to sustain it.

Again from the article:

"If, for example, Democrats introduced a sweeping package of democracy reforms and Republicans filibustered them, the majority could keep the Senate in session around the clock for days or weeks and require nearly all the Republicans to be present constantly, sleeping near the Senate floor and ready on a moment’s notice to jump up and get to the floor to vote—including those who are quite advanced in years, such as Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Charles Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. It would require a huge, sustained commitment on the part of Republicans, not the minor gesture now required. The drama, and the attention, would also give Democrats a chance to explain their reforms and perhaps get more public support—and eventually, they would get a law."

yeah, I still don't get it. wouldn't the Dems have to sleep on the floor too? Young chickens like Pat Leahy and Diane Feinstein? Or is only the group that has to muster 40 votes subject to floor sleeping?  

Also, I'm sure McConnell and company can get off of floor duty since they only need forty votes, so all 50 don't need to be there at once.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

 I think you'd only need enough senators on hand to keep the Senate in session, and the second you saw <= 39 Republicans present, call a vote on sustaining the filibuster. If they can't get 40 votes, cloture is invoked and the filibuster ends.

oh, and not for nothing, ending the filibuster now would make your scenario 10x less likely to happen, because elections would be much fairer.

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I don't quite get this. Does this mean that 40 of the 50 R's can still control the outcome?

 From the article: "If at any time the minority cannot muster 40 votes, debate ends, cloture is invoked, and the bill can be passed by the votes of a simple majority."

So it shifts the dynamic. Rather than the onus being on the majority who must break the filibuster, the minority would need to actively work to sustain it.

Again from the article:

"If, for example, Democrats introduced a sweeping package of democracy reforms and Republicans filibustered them, the majority could keep the Senate in session around the clock for days or weeks and require nearly all the Republicans to be present constantly, sleeping near the Senate floor and ready on a moment’s notice to jump up and get to the floor to vote—including those who are quite advanced in years, such as Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Charles Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. It would require a huge, sustained commitment on the part of Republicans, not the minor gesture now required. The drama, and the attention, would also give Democrats a chance to explain their reforms and perhaps get more public support—and eventually, they would get a law."

yeah, I still don't get it. wouldn't the Dems have to sleep on the floor too? Young chickens like Pat Leahy and Diane Feinstein? Or is only the group that has to muster 40 votes subject to floor sleeping?  

Also, I'm sure McConnell and company can get off of floor duty since they only need forty votes, so all 50 don't need to be there at once.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

 I think you'd only need enough senators on hand to keep the Senate in session, and the second you saw <= 39 Republicans present, call a vote on sustaining the filibuster. If they can't get 40 votes, cloture is invoked and the filibuster ends.

 sounds a bit too baroque to me.

drummerboy said:

third time, if we don't pass HR1 now, we're doomed for the future. For one thing, HR1 would get rid of gerrymanders. Do you have any idea how big that is? And that's only a small part of it.

But go ahead, plan ahead for future fantasy scenarios, and ignore the sword hanging over your head now.

Your plan will leave you with no head and no future to worry about.

Yeah, and once there are fewer than 50 votes the other way, it won’t be reversed.

Right?

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

I like a proposal I saw where you flip it -- you need 40 Senators to continue it, rather than 60 to end it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/fix-filibuster/615961/

 I don't quite get this. Does this mean that 40 of the 50 R's can still control the outcome?

 From the article: "If at any time the minority cannot muster 40 votes, debate ends, cloture is invoked, and the bill can be passed by the votes of a simple majority."

So it shifts the dynamic. Rather than the onus being on the majority who must break the filibuster, the minority would need to actively work to sustain it.

Again from the article:

"If, for example, Democrats introduced a sweeping package of democracy reforms and Republicans filibustered them, the majority could keep the Senate in session around the clock for days or weeks and require nearly all the Republicans to be present constantly, sleeping near the Senate floor and ready on a moment’s notice to jump up and get to the floor to vote—including those who are quite advanced in years, such as Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Charles Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. It would require a huge, sustained commitment on the part of Republicans, not the minor gesture now required. The drama, and the attention, would also give Democrats a chance to explain their reforms and perhaps get more public support—and eventually, they would get a law."

yeah, I still don't get it. wouldn't the Dems have to sleep on the floor too? Young chickens like Pat Leahy and Diane Feinstein? Or is only the group that has to muster 40 votes subject to floor sleeping?  

Also, I'm sure McConnell and company can get off of floor duty since they only need forty votes, so all 50 don't need to be there at once.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

 I think you'd only need enough senators on hand to keep the Senate in session, and the second you saw <= 39 Republicans present, call a vote on sustaining the filibuster. If they can't get 40 votes, cloture is invoked and the filibuster ends.

 sounds a bit too baroque to me.

 How so? Today you need a vote to overcome a filibuster. This way you'd need a vote to sustain it.

So let's say, for instance, HR 1 is taken up by the Senate under today's rules. The Senate votes to open debate, but there are not 60 votes to end debate (cloture), and so HR 1 dies.

Under the proposed change, the Senate takes up HR 1. Sen. Cruz moves to filibuster -- if he can't get 39 other senators to go along with him, the vote fails and the Senate moves on voting on HR1.

Or he is able to get 39 other senators to vote for a filibuster. Sen. Schumer keeps the Senate in session. Most Democratic senators leave around 7pm or so, but Cruz and 39 other senators stay. About 3AM Sen. Graham steps out to take a phone call from some guy in Florida upset about something he saw on Fox; Schumer calls for a vote on continuing the filibuster and, only getting 39 votes, it fails. Schumer immediately calls a recess until 10 AM the next morning, and when the Senate reconvenes they proceed to vote on HR. 1.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-for-the-first-time-says-he-wants-to-overhaul-the-filibuster/2021/03/16/82b41bc4-86b6-11eb-bfdf-4d36dab83a6d_story.html

Biden, for the first time, says he wants to overhaul the filibuster

WILMINGTON — President Biden said Tuesday he wants the Senate to overhaul the filibuster, embracing for the first time a major change to the chamber's rules that could make it easier for him to enact a far-reaching agenda that is blocked by Republicans.

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster. You have to do what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview to be aired Wednesday. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking . . . so you’ve got to work for the filibuster.”

“So you’re for that reform? You’re for bringing back the talking filibuster?” Stephanopoulos said.

“I am. That’s what it was supposed to be,” Biden replied. “It’s almost getting to the point where democracy is having a hard time functioning.”

The baroque part is keeping the Senate in session 24/7 waiting for Republican senators to drop off. With 50 R. senators that could go on forever. Which, btw, helps the R's because they're stalling the Senate.

It's like a Senate version of duck, duck, goose

Which is, by the way, why I don't care for restoring the talking filibuster either.

What are the rules for a talking filibuster? I'm assuming the filibustering side can tag team, in which case, I'm sure there's no shortage of R gasbags who can keep it going forever.

Anyway, it's an embarrassing way to run a government.

The Senate is, by design, anti-majoritarian, privileging less populated states over more populated ones. Currently that basic design also aligns with our partisan divisions, which greatly exacerbates this, but even if our political coalitions change over time the basic anti-majoritarian design of the Senate remains.

Given that, I'm hesitant to endorse a full on elimination of the filibuster. I think preserving real power for the minority is a goal worth keeping. But the filibuster as it currently exists makes a governing majority impotent, which is bad for democratic accountability. A political coalition winning a majority should be able to actually act and -- importantly -- should be seen to act and so held accountable by voters for the results of those actions. It's too easy today, for instance, for a Democratic senator to run a rhetorically pro-immigration campaign knowing s/he'll be unlikely to have to actually vote to back up those words. Does that senator unfairly get blamed by his/her constituents for not advancing legislation? Unfairly take credit for brave words that never faced a moment of voting truth? Either way, it's not great for democratic accountability. We get grandstanding, legislative shadow boxing, and sclerotic changes in public policy, so instead of the country collectively figuring out what we actually want, we pantomime conflict that never gets resolved one way or the other.

I think the goal of filibuster reform should be to preserve a real role for the minority, but impose a real cost so that blocking the majority becomes something done with deliberation and significant risk.

drummerboy said:

Which, btw, helps the R's because they're stalling the Senate.

If it's a measure that's popular even among Republican voters, like the ARP, I wonder what effect a transparent stalling of action would have on them.

jimmurphy said:

drummerboy said:

third time, if we don't pass HR1 now, we're doomed for the future. For one thing, HR1 would get rid of gerrymanders. Do you have any idea how big that is? And that's only a small part of it.

But go ahead, plan ahead for future fantasy scenarios, and ignore the sword hanging over your head now.

Your plan will leave you with no head and no future to worry about.

Yeah, and once there are fewer than 50 votes the other way, it won’t be reversed.

Right?

You don't avoid wielding power worrying that the other party might repeal it. That's just dumb and leads to a void of leadership.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Which, btw, helps the R's because they're stalling the Senate.

If it's a measure that's popular even among Republican voters, like the ARP, I wonder what effect a transparent stalling of action would have on them.

 The public doesn't really seem to care about process stuff. It's hard enough to get them to name their congress person.

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Which, btw, helps the R's because they're stalling the Senate.

If it's a measure that's popular even among Republican voters, like the ARP, I wonder what effect a transparent stalling of action would have on them.

 The public doesn't really seem to care about process stuff. It's hard enough to get them to name their congress person.

 Isn't a big reason for that because process stuff is mainly invisible? Hours, days, and weeks of Republicans visibly on the floor actively stalling popular legislation strikes me as pretty attention-getting.

drummerboy said:

What are the rules for a talking filibuster? I'm assuming the filibustering side can tag team, in which case, I'm sure there's no shortage of R gasbags who can keep it going forever.

 It depends. Biden was (likely on purpose) vague here. If tag-teaming is allowed, then to your point, this seems a pretty worthless change. If it's not, that's quite different.